Taiwan Balancing Act

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

October 29, 1999

A Congressional committee voted Tuesday in favor of legislation that
would increase military support for Taiwan. This preliminary vote by
the House International Relations Committee, let alone the floor
vote-to-come, has already brought forth a fresh round of sputtering
from Beijing. There's been plenty of sputtering from Washington too,
from Administration officials such as Stanley Roth, Assistant
Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific affairs, who earlier
condemned the bill as a "potentially dangerous vote against a
policy that has worked through four administrations and continues to
work today."

Mr. Roth has it backward. In fact, the Taiwan Security Enhancement
Act is an attempt to restore U.S. policy to the one that worked well
through four administrations, but which the Clinton Administration
knocked out of kilter. It sends an important message to Beijing: that
despite any intimations to the contrary from the Clinton
Administration, the U.S. will abide by its long-standing commitments
to Taiwan.

The famous one-China policy, developed with great care in 1972,
offered a useful ambiguity to all parties: It helped Taiwan advance to
prosperity and democracy, it encouraged the mainland to distance
itself from Mao, and it allowed the U.S. to gloss over the
inconvenient reality of two clearly different Chinese governments in
Beijing and Taipei. It was a delicate balancing act, but it worked.

Then Mr. Clinton upset that delicate balance during his trip to
China last year. No ambiguity for him. Instead, he gave his outright
support to the mainland's long-sought "three nos"--no
independence for Taiwan, no two Chinas, and no membership for Taiwan
in international organizations. 'Far from defending the status quo,
the Clinton Administration has become an advocate for mainland China.

As the U.S. stepped away from its commitment to Taiwan, China
stepped away from its commitment to solve the reunification problem
without recourse to violence. Rep. Ben Gilman, chairman of the House
International Relations Committee, says the bill was in response to "Beijing's
outright refusal to renounce the use of force against Taiwan."

It shouldn't escape Beijing's notice that there was strong
bipartisan support for the bill, which passed by a 32-6 vote. The bill
now emphasizes what Congress -- and previous administrations -- have
long said: that the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act means the U.S. will
continue to sell Taiwan arms sufficient for its self-defense.

In addition, the bill requires a number of sensible measures that
will go a long way toward reducing the possibility of a military
confrontation in the Taiwan Strait. It requires annual reports on the
security situation there and on Taiwan's requests for arms purchases.
A one-time, classified report on the ability of the U.S. to respond to
a crisis in Taiwan is also mandated.

None of this, however, is likely to be put into practice, since Mr.
Clinton is sure to veto the bill. Instead, the debate over the Taiwan
Security Enhancement Act will remain a largely symbolic battle. But it
has served a useful purpose in stirring up debate about how America
should live up to its long-standing commitments to Taiwan. China's
leaders must accept, as their predecessors did, that reunification
will be a long process. The proper U.S. role should be to hold Beijing
to its promise to advance the process peacefully.